Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

USincognito said:

Ah, nobody you can cite and thus your claim can be rejected for lack of substantiation. Thank you.

Click to expand...

hardly:
The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-live research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391

whois said:

hardly:
The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-live research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391

Click to expand...

So?

USincognito said:

Thankfully you didn't say consol's name three times. Because if you'd said consol's name three times consol would... oh no!!!!

Click to expand...

USincognito said:

Who is this we of which you speak?

Click to expand...

Researchers.

whois said:

probably the entire scientific community.

Click to expand...

Nope.

whois said:

you missed the point sfs.
i am NOT proposing that ID and similar "theories" have shred of truth.
what i AM saying is that a breakdown in the modern synthesis does 2 things:
it removes a lot of the arguement against said "theories" and gives them a foot in the door.

Click to expand...

Even assuming that modern synthesis "breakdown-able", that does not follow.

The only thing that gets an idea a "foot in the door" is positive evidence for that idea.
Poking holes in other ideas has no effect at all on the credibility of rivaling ideas.

That is exactly the problem with ideas like ID.
They have 2 kinds of "support".

The first is pure dishonesty. The deliberate camouflaged use of logical fallacies (ignorance & teleological with respectively "complexity" and "purpose"). Also part of the dishonesty is flat out lying about biologicy and biologists (conspiracies and whatnot).

The second is no more or less then attempts to attack evolution theory.

There is no actual positive evidence for ID.
Only positive evidence will get it a "foot in the door".

OTOH, why is ID and other similar "theories" bad?
don't get me wrong, i find them as ridiculous as anyone else, but since when has "ridiculous" been proof of anything?

Click to expand...

They are ridiculous because they are based on dishonesty, ignorance and are nothing but religious ideas disguised in a lab coat.

we definitely have ourselves an interesting little dilemma here in regards to life and how it all works. sure, mendels laws seem pretty simple in operation, but when you move into the mechanics of it all, you move from the simple to a virtual rats nest.

Click to expand...

Yea well... biology doesn't owe you any simplicity.

I don't see how this is a dilemma at all.
Things are more complicated then previously imagined. What's the problem?

Oncedeceived said:

Fine, throw it out. The other one stands. AND:

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.... TACITUS

Click to expand...

If I tell you a story about my religion "Gluglochen" and that I worship this guy called "Ugloch", who got killed in Iraq when Bush invaded, and you then write down the following:

Obama fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Gluchlochians by the populace. Ugloch, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Bush at the hands of ... Saddam Hussein, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Iraq, the first source of the evil, but even in New York....


Would that passage then be a proof that this Ugloch really existed?

DogmaHunter said:

If I tell you a story about my religion "Gluglochen" and that I worship this guy called "Ugloch", who got killed in Iraq when Bush invaded, and you then write down the following:

Obama fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Gluchlochians by the populace. Ugloch, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Bush at the hands of ... Saddam Hussein, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Iraq, the first source of the evil, but even in New York....


Would that passage then be a proof that this Ugloch really existed?

Click to expand...

If someone called Christ had followers and they were Christians and that person was crucified, the followers laid back for a bit but came back out again, I would say that if other sources claimed the same that it would provide pretty conclusively that HE did exist. Which wasn't the point anyway for citing the link because Jan claimed there were no other sources other than the Bible for Christ's existence which this document refutes. I don't know of any historian that claims Jesus didn't exist.

Richard Carrier and there are more.

Oncedeceived said:

If someone called Christ had followers and they were Christians and that person was crucified, the followers laid back for a bit but came back out again, I would say that if other sources claimed the same that it would provide pretty conclusively that HE did exist.

Click to expand...

Or that the one who wrote the sources was aware of the existence of the cult and what their story was.

Much like how medieval england had stories about Vikings who worshoppid some dude named Thor who had a big hammer.

Are you familiar with the idea (and importance) of "independend and contemporary" sources?

Because it sounds like you don't.

Which wasn't the point anyway for citing the link because Jan claimed there were no other sources other than the Bible for Christ's existence which this document refutes.

Click to expand...

That document doesn't refute anything, which is what we are trying to tell you.
The only thing that the document acknowledges is that there is this cult called "christians" and makes mention of the main tenant of said cult.

This is not an "extra-biblical" account of the historical person jesus. It just isn't.
It's only an account that acknowledges the existance of christians and what they believe.

I don't know of any historian that claims Jesus didn't exist.

Click to expand...

This isn't about claims of Jesus existance or non-existance.
This is about sources available to us.

I happen to think it is more likely that there was a historical jesus upon which the movement was based. I also happen to think that if we would have the actual contemporary and independend account of this person, we would barely recognise the character as the Jesus of the bible.

I think it is quite likely that the story has been embelished so much that little (if anything) from the original remains.

But that's the thing, isn't? We don't know this... why? Because there are no extra-biblical sources about this guy. There are no contemporary and independend accounts about this guy.

The only thing that exists are (incompatible) stories from decades, even centuries in some cases, after the alledged facts. And these sources are copies of copies of translations of copies, written by anonymous authors - again, decades and centuries after the alledged facts.

MOD HAT ON

Staff has deliberated and found consensus that this thread will remain closed due to the following violation as stated in this forum's Statement of Purpose (stickied at the top):

General Apologetics: This is not a forum where Christians are asked to defend their faith against objections and criticism from non-believers (there are no general apologetics forums on CF). For those who have sincere questions about the Christian faith, please start a thread in the Exploring Christianity forum.

Please review each forum's statement of purpose, and adhere to them.

MOD HAT OFF